2017 (7) TMI 597 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - the service tax was deposited against the PAN based registration number of the outgoing proprietor, Shri Kaushik Jain instead of on registration number using PAN of the new proprietor, Shri Narnendra Jain - Held that - even after transfer of business with effect from October 2010 by Mr. Kaushik Jain, Proprietor, the proprietorship concern continued to remain the same as Adinath Bulk Carrier without change of name. Thus, there could be possibility of wrong deposit of service tax against the same service tax registration number which was PAN based. It is the claim of the appellant that Shri Kaushik Jain who remained as proprietor till October 2010 even after transfer of the business, the service tax amount was continued to be deposited against the same service tax registration number till it is changed. The new proprietor Shri Narnendra Jain later discharged the entire amount of service tax along with interest again. These facts need to be verified whether the service tax against the same invoices were paid twice and whether Shri Narendra Jain discharged the service tax with interest subsequently - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of service tax paid against the wrong PAN-based registration number due to a change in proprietorship.

Analysis:
The case involves a refund claim of service tax paid amounting to a specific sum due to a mistake in depositing the tax against the PAN-based registration number of the outgoing proprietor instead of the new proprietor. The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, argued that despite the change in proprietorship, the name of the service provider remained the same, leading to the erroneous payment of service tax. The new proprietor rectified the error by paying the tax again with interest. Supporting documents such as the transfer of business agreement and sales registration were submitted to validate the claim.

The Revenue's representative contended that verification of the documents was necessary to confirm the double payment of service tax against the same set of invoices. The matter was suggested to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination to determine the eligibility of the refund claim.

Upon review, it was observed that despite the change in proprietor, the service provider's name remained unchanged, potentially resulting in the incorrect deposit of service tax against the same registration number. The appellant claimed that the outgoing proprietor continued to deposit the tax until the registration number was changed, and the new proprietor subsequently paid the tax in full with interest. The Tribunal concluded that if the service tax was indeed paid twice for the same services, the appellant would be entitled to a refund. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further verification. The appeal was allowed for remand.